The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Killing Free Speech
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In early 2017, YouGov asked about various forms of speech they thought “people should be able to talk about in public”. Five controversial subjects were evaluated–personal criticisms of the president, calls for violence, sexually explicit language, racial slurs, and religiously offensive remarks.

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographics, who asserted that none of these things should be permitted in public. These are people who, if they don’t want free speech snuffed out entirely, want it relegated to basements and boiler rooms:

Free speech, besides being necessary to facilitate the accumulation of knowledge–which we know to be good–is also a rhetorically profitable way of appealing to the better angels of SWPL nature.

Young, affluent, liberal white and Asian men–Silicon Valley check?–are, at least abstractly, the most resistant to the concept of silencing unpopular opinions. This discomfort is a virtue to be celebrated. To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Freedom, Polling, Speech 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s sad that so many Americans want to restrict the speech of all their fellow Americans.

    It’s doubly sad that one third of those who call themselves liberals want to do that too. Don’t they know the origin of the word ‘liberal’?

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    What's actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think "calls for violence" and "sexually explicit language" are examples of things to be protected by free speech. At least read of the classical liberal justifications for free speech-- I would suggest Mill "on liberty" and Milton's "Areopagitica"-- to understand the arguments in support of why we have free speech in the first place.* Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity, and most writers specifically excluded calls for violence from being "protected." There is no logical justification for allowing these things.

    *Really you should also read some opponents of free speech, like Plato. But first learn what free speech is and isn't.
  2. [Gordon Ramsay voice]

    fuck me

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  3. To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:

    No, not really. This is a Whig-historical conceit but it isn’t really true. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    There is no such thing as free speech because there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him. The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty. Think about it.

    • Disagree: iffen, Buzz Mohawk, AKAHorace
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.
     
    Freedom of speech is inherently subversive. Its purpose is to undermine the status quo. It's popular among those who wish for radical change. Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech.

    Conservatives used to hate free speech back in the days when they were opposed to radical change. Now that conservatives no longer want to conserve anything they love free speech.

    The dissident right loves free speech because they're would-be revolutionaries (they're probably the most inept revolutionaries in history but that's another topic).

    Freedom of speech is a weapon with which to smash the current order. Liberals have used it with enthusiasm for well over a century. Now liberals control the current order so they're less keen on free speech.
    , @WorkingClass
    You should not be allowed to say ANY of that.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    My God, you are despicable.

    I did not know this until I read your comment. Thank God you had the freedom to write it.

    Do you see how this works, idiot?
    , @DaninMD
    Some awareness please. The very blog you are commenting on right now would go away!
  4. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun; or you could be sliced up like sashimi by a battle-hardened mercenary, because some Frenchman dressed like RuPaul was insulted by a German guy with a tail.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun
     
    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano. I don't suppose we can, so this is just the price we pay for intellectual freedom.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
    , @Dissident

    or you could be sliced up like sashimi by a battle-hardened mercenary, because some Frenchman dressed like RuPaul was insulted by a German guy with a tail.
     
    I hear, in the above, echoes of Dickens' opening to Tale of Two Cities. Did it, perchance, serve as an influence upon what you wrote?

    Under the guidance of her Christian pastors, she entertained herself, besides, with such humane achievements as sentencing a youth to have his hands cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers, and his body burned alive, because he had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of monks which passed within his view, at a distance of some fifty or sixty yards.
     
    To anyone who would claim, without qualification, that Dickens was an anti-Catholic bigot, I would ask: How familiar are you with his other work of historical fiction, Barnaby Rudge? (Centered around the Gordon Riots of 1780. One or two of the more extreme anti-Catholic individuals whose comments I have come across from time-to-time here at UR have reminded me of the infamous No Popery! cries that the wonderfully talented Mil Nicholson so compellingly animates in her reading of said Dickens' work that I linked-to above. Incidentally, I would probably rate Rudge more highly than I would Two Cities.)

    A question I would ask Intelligent Dasein and others who share his apparent desire to restore the West to Throne and Altar theocracy of the Roman Catholic variety: How would non-Christians be treated in, say, the United States of America you envision? Would we, as long as were not actively hostile or subversive to the State religion, be afforded the freedom of conscience to believe or not believe, practice or not practice, as we so chose?

  5. personal criticisms of the president

    Opinions on that topic will depend on who the current president is, so I would exclude that from the set of questions.

    I’d also be curious how many support whatever the current law of the land is in the US. Must be a very small minority. Is calls for violence protected under free speech?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, that is the least useful item, but it is also the one that had the greatest support for being allowed, so in the context of those who would not allow any of the things to be publicly discussed, it's not influencing the numbers much if at all.
  6. @Intelligent Dasein

    To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:
     
    No, not really. This is a Whig-historical conceit but it isn't really true. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    There is no such thing as free speech because there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him. The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of "liberty," i.e. revolutionaries.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty. Think about it.

    The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.

    Freedom of speech is inherently subversive. Its purpose is to undermine the status quo. It’s popular among those who wish for radical change. Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech.

    Conservatives used to hate free speech back in the days when they were opposed to radical change. Now that conservatives no longer want to conserve anything they love free speech.

    The dissident right loves free speech because they’re would-be revolutionaries (they’re probably the most inept revolutionaries in history but that’s another topic).

    Freedom of speech is a weapon with which to smash the current order. Liberals have used it with enthusiasm for well over a century. Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want, instead of the freedom to do what is right (with the implication that there is only limited freedom to do what is wrong), I mean Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, including Socrates who thought democracy was stupid, certainly thought the later instead of the modern thought of freedom as being able to do whatever you want.
    , @Dissident

    Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech
     
    A bit late for that now, isn't it? As you acknowledge in your concluding sentence,

    Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.
     
    At this point, a great deal of radical change has already been effected. At least some of this change has been so radical and revolutionary that it would almost certainly appall even some of the most extreme radicals and revolutionaries of the past.

    [Would Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che` or Mao ever dream of denying a biological reality as objective, clear and manifest as that of sex*? Even radical feminists who insist that there is no biological basis for traditional sex* roles (already a degree of lunacy) reject the complete lunacy of pretending that an individual of one sex can, by declaring himself to be a member of the opposite sex, magically become one.}

    *"Gender", let it never be forgotten, is but a linguistic construct.)

    The principled, consistent concept of freedom of speech, as I understand it, is that it is precisely that which is deemed offensive and objectionable that is in need of protection. No one tries to stifle the expression of views that he finds agreeable or innocuous. What The prevailing dispensation, zeitgeist and sensibilities at any given time and place, are inevitably (if not inherently) subjective and volatile. Recognizing this reality, it behooves everyone-- assenters as well as dissenters; Deplorables as well as Respectables-- to support, within certain reasonable limits as determined and stipulated by consensus, a universal, impartial right of free speech.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
    ~ ~ ~
    Rosie wrote,

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Would abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) adversely affect a Galileo type?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Serrano

    [...], led the artist to create his infamous Piss Christ. This image was exhibited at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, N.C., in 1988, as part of that institution’s Awards in the Visual Arts series, funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[emphasis mine- Dis.]
     
    ~ ~ ~

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.
     
    Quite forgivable, given the degree of sheer, unmitigated, invincible haughtiness, condescension and, as you note, self-satisfaction, that the individual-in-question has consistently, persistently demonstrated. Your expression of regret is most commendable, nonetheless. Any veering into personal attacks can all-too-quickly plunge a thread into the abyss. I find the best, most simple basic rule to follow when engaging in debate to be one I heard articulated by Luke Ford: Stick to facts and logic.
    , @Dissident

    Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech
     
    A bit late for that now, isn't it? As you acknowledge in your concluding sentence,

    Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.
     
    At this point, a great deal of radical change has already been effected. At least some of this change has been so radical and revolutionary that it would almost certainly appall even some of the most extreme radicals and revolutionaries of the past.

    [Would Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che` or Mao ever dream of denying a biological reality as objective, clear and manifest as that of sex*? Even radical feminists who insist that there is no biological basis for traditional sex* roles (already a degree of lunacy) reject the complete lunacy of pretending that an individual of one sex can, by declaring himself to be a member of the opposite sex, magically become one.}

    *"Gender", let it never be forgotten, is but a linguistic construct.)

    The principled, consistent concept of freedom of speech, as I understand it, is that it is precisely that which is deemed offensive and objectionable that is in need of protection. No one tries to stifle the expression of views that he finds agreeable or innocuous. What The prevailing dispensation, zeitgeist and sensibilities at any given time and place, are inevitably (if not inherently) subjective and volatile. Recognizing this reality, it behooves everyone-- assenters as well as dissenters; Deplorables as well as Respectables-- to support, within certain reasonable limits as determined and stipulated by consensus, a universal, impartial right of free speech.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
    ~ ~ ~
    Rosie wrote,

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Would abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) adversely affect a Galileo type?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Serrano

    [...], led the artist to create his infamous Piss Christ. This image was exhibited at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, N.C., in 1988, as part of that institution’s Awards in the Visual Arts series, funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[emphasis mine- Dis.]
     
    ~ ~ ~

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.
     
    Quite forgivable, given the degree of sheer, unmitigated, invincible haughtiness, condescension and, as you note, self-satisfaction, that the individual-in-question has consistently, persistently demonstrated. Your expression of regret is most commendable, nonetheless. Any veering into personal attacks can all-too-quickly plunge a thread into the abyss. I find the best, most simple basic rule to follow when engaging in debate to be one I heard articulated by Luke Ford: Stick to facts and logic.
  7. @Nodwink

    Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.
     
    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun; or you could be sliced up like sashimi by a battle-hardened mercenary, because some Frenchman dressed like RuPaul was insulted by a German guy with a tail.

    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano. I don’t suppose we can, so this is just the price we pay for intellectual freedom.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Galileo did not get into trouble for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He got into trouble for publishing the idea in Italian rather than Latin, thereby exposing ordinary people to the idea. The Church felt that this would undermine religion. They were of course correct. From their point of view Galileo was dangerous.

    I'm not a Christian myself but I can see their point. It was, along with the Reformation, the beginning of the end for Christianity.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    Whether the destruction of Christianity was a good thing or not is of course a matter of opinion.

    Galileo was a lot more dangerous that some poor sick deranged nutter who thinks he's an artist.
  8. @dfordoom

    The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.
     
    Freedom of speech is inherently subversive. Its purpose is to undermine the status quo. It's popular among those who wish for radical change. Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech.

    Conservatives used to hate free speech back in the days when they were opposed to radical change. Now that conservatives no longer want to conserve anything they love free speech.

    The dissident right loves free speech because they're would-be revolutionaries (they're probably the most inept revolutionaries in history but that's another topic).

    Freedom of speech is a weapon with which to smash the current order. Liberals have used it with enthusiasm for well over a century. Now liberals control the current order so they're less keen on free speech.

    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want, instead of the freedom to do what is right (with the implication that there is only limited freedom to do what is wrong), I mean Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, including Socrates who thought democracy was stupid, certainly thought the later instead of the modern thought of freedom as being able to do whatever you want.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    Because right and wrong are dictated by the leaders of a country. For most people doing what is right means serving liberalism. They aren't conscious of the destructive nature of liberal morality.

    As dfrdoom said the current establishment is liberal which is why they aren't keen on free speech.

    Liberals mostly control speech through intimidation. Journalists, artists and scientists know that going too far outside liberal norms can end your career. We don't live in a free society. People control and censor themselves all the time.

    , @iffen
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.
  9. Oliver Reed — the Limey actor in that scene with that antipodean arsehole who throws phones at American hotel workers, Russell Crowe — got a glass of whiskey dumped on him by Hollywood Jew actress Shelly Winters on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show after Oliver Reed made some sensible comments about women and Women Liberationists.

    This brings up the JEW QUESTION and I believe that retired professor Kevin MacDonald has written extensively about how the JEW NATION and its adherents and occupants absolutely DO NOT have any ancestral reverence or appreciation for FREE SPEECH. In fact, the denizens of the JEW NATION have an intense desire to stifle free speech, especially as it pertains to the JEW QUESTION in European Christian nations and in regards to matters concerning Israel.

    This sassy Jew broad Shelly Winters was shapely and of some interest to watch in films, but she had no damn right to dump a glass of whiskey on the top portion of a standing Oliver Reed.

    I liked that Scottish and German broad Ethel Merman a lot more than I liked that Shelly Winters broad.

    JEW QUESTION defined to illuminate the above reference further:

    Jews form a nation within a nation everywhere they reside. Can Jews ever be considered to be part of the larger nation in which they reside when they are genetically and culturally predisposed to put the interests of the Jew Nation over and above the interests of the larger nations in which they reside?

    Oliver Reed told some woman in the audience to hush up and he reasonably told the woman to be quiet. Oliver Reed had also told the obstreperous broad in the audience that “Shakespeare wasn’t a bird, Madam, and neither is Johnny Carson.”

    Oliver Reed said some other stuff and Shelly Winters blew a phucking gasket and then she dumped a glass of whiskey on his Limey coconut and Oliver Reed kept his calm in a most civilized way.

    Oliver Reed vs Shelly Winters in a WOMEN’S LIBERATIONIST / FREE SPEECH BRAWL starting at 3:45 of video:

  10. @Intelligent Dasein

    To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:
     
    No, not really. This is a Whig-historical conceit but it isn't really true. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    There is no such thing as free speech because there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him. The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of "liberty," i.e. revolutionaries.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty. Think about it.

    You should not be allowed to say ANY of that.

  11. @Some Guy

    personal criticisms of the president
     
    Opinions on that topic will depend on who the current president is, so I would exclude that from the set of questions.


    I'd also be curious how many support whatever the current law of the land is in the US. Must be a very small minority. Is calls for violence protected under free speech?

    Yes, that is the least useful item, but it is also the one that had the greatest support for being allowed, so in the context of those who would not allow any of the things to be publicly discussed, it’s not influencing the numbers much if at all.

  12. @Charles Pewitt
    Oliver Reed -- the Limey actor in that scene with that antipodean arsehole who throws phones at American hotel workers, Russell Crowe -- got a glass of whiskey dumped on him by Hollywood Jew actress Shelly Winters on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show after Oliver Reed made some sensible comments about women and Women Liberationists.

    This brings up the JEW QUESTION and I believe that retired professor Kevin MacDonald has written extensively about how the JEW NATION and its adherents and occupants absolutely DO NOT have any ancestral reverence or appreciation for FREE SPEECH. In fact, the denizens of the JEW NATION have an intense desire to stifle free speech, especially as it pertains to the JEW QUESTION in European Christian nations and in regards to matters concerning Israel.

    This sassy Jew broad Shelly Winters was shapely and of some interest to watch in films, but she had no damn right to dump a glass of whiskey on the top portion of a standing Oliver Reed.

    I liked that Scottish and German broad Ethel Merman a lot more than I liked that Shelly Winters broad.

    JEW QUESTION defined to illuminate the above reference further:

    Jews form a nation within a nation everywhere they reside. Can Jews ever be considered to be part of the larger nation in which they reside when they are genetically and culturally predisposed to put the interests of the Jew Nation over and above the interests of the larger nations in which they reside?

     

    Oliver Reed told some woman in the audience to hush up and he reasonably told the woman to be quiet. Oliver Reed had also told the obstreperous broad in the audience that "Shakespeare wasn't a bird, Madam, and neither is Johnny Carson."

    Oliver Reed said some other stuff and Shelly Winters blew a phucking gasket and then she dumped a glass of whiskey on his Limey coconut and Oliver Reed kept his calm in a most civilized way.

    Oliver Reed vs Shelly Winters in a WOMEN'S LIBERATIONIST / FREE SPEECH BRAWL starting at 3:45 of video:

    https://youtu.be/wyV3DlvKYmA
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech.

     

    EXPRESS being the operative word in that sentence.

    I don't think that Jews conceive of FREE SPEECH in the same way that European Christians do. The Jew conception of FREE SPEECH is that any speech that questions the behaviour or actions of Jews or Jew organizations or Israel is not free speech.

    Comcast(NBC) and Disney(ABC) and Viacom(CBS) and the New York Times and Alphabet(Google) and other corporate media outlets are controlled by Jews and they do not support free speech for anybody but themselves. Although the New York Times has been more open to debating immigration over the last few decades than has been the Wall Street Journal under the control of the Murdoch Mob and its previous owners.

    The internet has been shutting down free speech and shuttering the ability of regular people to express their FREE SPEECH and it doesn't seem to me like organized Jewry has been too bothered. I would argue very strenuously that JOG -- Jews Organized Globally -- is expressly interested in destroying FREE SPEECH all over the world.

    Some other commenter had it about right when they were talking about current ruling orders and who is in power and the like. When you are out of power you want free speech and when you're in power you want to shut down opposition.

    Aldous Huxley wrote about neo-conservative types who are out of power and then they get power and they all of a sudden become new conservatives who want to preserve the order because it now serves them.

    I have been saying for years -- along with others -- that what we got in the American Empire is a JEW/WASP ruling class and the Jew portion of that ruling class does not want any FREE SPEECH in regards to the Jew Question or about Israel or about the Israel Lobby in the USA.

    Aldous Huxley The Devils Of Loudun(1952):

    “In Communist Russia, in Fascist Italy, in Nazi germany, the exploiters of humanity’s fatal taste for herd-poison have followed an identical course. When in revolutionary opposition, they encouraged the mobs under their influence to become destructively violent. Later, when they had come to power, it was only in relation to foreigners and selected scapegoats that they permitted herd-intoxication to run its full course. having acquired a vested interest in the status quo, they now checked the descent into subhumanity at a point well this side of frenzy. For these neo-conservatives, mass-intoxication was chiefly valuable, henceforward, as a means for heightening their subjects’ suggestibility and so rendering them more docile to the expressions of authoritarian will. Being in a crowd is the best known antidote to independent thought. hence the dictators’ rooted objection to “mere psychology” and a private life. “intellectuals of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains.”

    Neo-conservatives — used by Aldous Huxley in 1952.
    , @iffen
    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech.

    Unless it supports BDS.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    And I suppose this is reflected in the efforts of Jewish activism, such as the ADL and AIPAC and SPLC; groups that work harder to destroy the lives of anyone whom they deem a hate group, racist, or antisemitic. Let's also not forget the criminal charges (some Orwellian optimists might instead call those incentives) that can be brought against individuals that publicly express doubts about the official holocaust history (this is not an endorsement of those doubts) in however many Western nations.

    At what point does one have to reconcile what they see with their own eyes with the data collected from some of these polls? Sure, 99% of liberals will tell you they are the least racist people in the world if given any opportunity, but their lifestyles (home, education, recreation and employment) indicate some of the highest in group preference of anyone.
  13. @Intelligent Dasein

    To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:
     
    No, not really. This is a Whig-historical conceit but it isn't really true. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    There is no such thing as free speech because there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him. The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of "liberty," i.e. revolutionaries.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty. Think about it.

    My God, you are despicable.

    I did not know this until I read your comment. Thank God you had the freedom to write it.

    Do you see how this works, idiot?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    Full "free speech" is an illusion. All ages have their taboos. At times it was religious heresies, or criticizing the Emperor, now it is questioning the wisdom of multiracialism or, say, how many people died in the Holocaust. Penalties can vary, however. Right now, at least in the U.S., you can be socially ostracized, lose your job or the possibility of earning a living, but probably won't go to prison (but wasn't someone recently arrested and condemned to 14 years in jail for burning a rainblow fag, I mean, rainbow flag?), but many people in Europe are being arrested for "hate speech".

    Certainly I don't see anything similar to "free speech" being very common now in the West - if it was really "free", why do most people, even here at Unz, use pseudonyms?

    And I don't see that changing for the "freer" in the future, on the opposite. Technology, if anything, has empowered the possibilities of censorship much more than of "freedom".
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Do you see how this works, idiot?
     
    Yes.
  14. @Audacious Epigone

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech.

    EXPRESS being the operative word in that sentence.

    I don’t think that Jews conceive of FREE SPEECH in the same way that European Christians do. The Jew conception of FREE SPEECH is that any speech that questions the behaviour or actions of Jews or Jew organizations or Israel is not free speech.

    Comcast(NBC) and Disney(ABC) and Viacom(CBS) and the New York Times and Alphabet(Google) and other corporate media outlets are controlled by Jews and they do not support free speech for anybody but themselves. Although the New York Times has been more open to debating immigration over the last few decades than has been the Wall Street Journal under the control of the Murdoch Mob and its previous owners.

    The internet has been shutting down free speech and shuttering the ability of regular people to express their FREE SPEECH and it doesn’t seem to me like organized Jewry has been too bothered. I would argue very strenuously that JOG — Jews Organized Globally — is expressly interested in destroying FREE SPEECH all over the world.

    Some other commenter had it about right when they were talking about current ruling orders and who is in power and the like. When you are out of power you want free speech and when you’re in power you want to shut down opposition.

    Aldous Huxley wrote about neo-conservative types who are out of power and then they get power and they all of a sudden become new conservatives who want to preserve the order because it now serves them.

    I have been saying for years — along with others — that what we got in the American Empire is a JEW/WASP ruling class and the Jew portion of that ruling class does not want any FREE SPEECH in regards to the Jew Question or about Israel or about the Israel Lobby in the USA.

    Aldous Huxley The Devils Of Loudun(1952):

    “In Communist Russia, in Fascist Italy, in Nazi germany, the exploiters of humanity’s fatal taste for herd-poison have followed an identical course. When in revolutionary opposition, they encouraged the mobs under their influence to become destructively violent. Later, when they had come to power, it was only in relation to foreigners and selected scapegoats that they permitted herd-intoxication to run its full course. having acquired a vested interest in the status quo, they now checked the descent into subhumanity at a point well this side of frenzy. For these neo-conservatives, mass-intoxication was chiefly valuable, henceforward, as a means for heightening their subjects’ suggestibility and so rendering them more docile to the expressions of authoritarian will. Being in a crowd is the best known antidote to independent thought. hence the dictators’ rooted objection to “mere psychology” and a private life. “intellectuals of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains.”

    Neo-conservatives — used by Aldous Huxley in 1952.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
  15. Interesting results but this type of poll doesn’t work with liberals. They have a deluded view where they think they support free speech while they also support controlling the speech of dissenting views.

    They consider discussing race openly as “hate speech” and as such not real speech.

    In their minds there is nothing to discuss because The Science (left-wing social scientists) have already decided it doesn’t exist and as such you are just promoting hatred.

    If liberals had complete control they would censor the internet in the name of science. Only controlled channels would be allowed to discuss race with the justification of preventing unscientific views. The editor of Scientific American actually proposed this type of system a while back. He couldn’t answer simple questions about race posed to him in the comments section but actually suggested a board review for any racial study. This board would would determine if the public should be allowed to see the study.

    • Agree: Rosie
  16. @Znzn
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want, instead of the freedom to do what is right (with the implication that there is only limited freedom to do what is wrong), I mean Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, including Socrates who thought democracy was stupid, certainly thought the later instead of the modern thought of freedom as being able to do whatever you want.

    Because right and wrong are dictated by the leaders of a country. For most people doing what is right means serving liberalism. They aren’t conscious of the destructive nature of liberal morality.

    As dfrdoom said the current establishment is liberal which is why they aren’t keen on free speech.

    Liberals mostly control speech through intimidation. Journalists, artists and scientists know that going too far outside liberal norms can end your career. We don’t live in a free society. People control and censor themselves all the time.

  17. This is why the authoritarian left is so worrisome.

    The problem is that many liberals who pretend to support “free speech” are disingenuous apologists for big tech censorship and SJW witch hunts, going around parroting “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” whenever the issue involves the progressive suite of -isms that can be labeled hate speech.

    Silicon Valley boys might talk about free speech in the abstract, but twist themselves into knots defending Google for firing James Damore. Liberal journalists might complain about violations of their first amendment rights, but they typically defend themselves and affiliated organizations. They won’t hesitate to throw independent journalists under the bus or at least look the other way when their SJW colleague goes on the attack.

  18. To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:

    Disagree.

    Our tradition of generally free speech was not the source/cause of our greatness, it was an effect.

    We used to have actual blasphemy and profanity laws, and we were better off.

    The constitution should be scrapped and something new should replace it. Either it failed to prevent the current state, ineffective, or it is working as intended in which case it’s terrible.

  19. @Buzz Mohawk
    My God, you are despicable.

    I did not know this until I read your comment. Thank God you had the freedom to write it.

    Do you see how this works, idiot?

    Full “free speech” is an illusion. All ages have their taboos. At times it was religious heresies, or criticizing the Emperor, now it is questioning the wisdom of multiracialism or, say, how many people died in the Holocaust. Penalties can vary, however. Right now, at least in the U.S., you can be socially ostracized, lose your job or the possibility of earning a living, but probably won’t go to prison (but wasn’t someone recently arrested and condemned to 14 years in jail for burning a rainblow fag, I mean, rainbow flag?), but many people in Europe are being arrested for “hate speech”.

    Certainly I don’t see anything similar to “free speech” being very common now in the West – if it was really “free”, why do most people, even here at Unz, use pseudonyms?

    And I don’t see that changing for the “freer” in the future, on the opposite. Technology, if anything, has empowered the possibilities of censorship much more than of “freedom”.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I have little or no argument with what you say, except that you are missing the point of my comment against Mr. pseudoIntelligent Design. I disagree with, and find despicable, these following statements of his:

    ... back when the world was a much better place.
     
    It wasn't.

    ... there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him.
     
    This denies what makes us human.

    ... The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it...
     
    We don't wish to abuse it.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty.
     
    It didn't.

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn't.
  20. @Znzn
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want, instead of the freedom to do what is right (with the implication that there is only limited freedom to do what is wrong), I mean Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, including Socrates who thought democracy was stupid, certainly thought the later instead of the modern thought of freedom as being able to do whatever you want.

    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    Agreed. In my youth I confused freedom with license. This is not an uncommon error. I learned the difference in the school of hard knocks.
    , @Dissident
    Znzn asked:

    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want
     
    iffen answered:

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.
     

    But should it-- i.e., the necessity for constraints-- be taught? It is not clear to me what your position is on that.

    Absolute freedom is an illusion that cannot exist.
    1.) If I'm free to blast music at any hour, then my neighbor is not free to get a proper night's sleep.
    2.) Even on the level of the individual, without constraints, man is a slave to his instincts and passions. Of course, the questions of determining just what those constraints should be and how and by whom they should be enforced, are, of course, many and far from simple. But ultimately, it is always a compromise; there has never and can never be a place and time where everyone can enjoy absolute freedom.

  21. @Audacious Epigone

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech.

    Unless it supports BDS.

    • Agree: 216, Realist
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech

    Unless it supports BDS.
     

     
    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist, let alone supportive of quashing the free speech rights of BDS supporters.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

  22. @orionyx
    It's sad that so many Americans want to restrict the speech of all their fellow Americans.

    It's doubly sad that one third of those who call themselves liberals want to do that too. Don't they know the origin of the word 'liberal'?

    What’s actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think “calls for violence” and “sexually explicit language” are examples of things to be protected by free speech. At least read of the classical liberal justifications for free speech– I would suggest Mill “on liberty” and Milton’s “Areopagitica”– to understand the arguments in support of why we have free speech in the first place.* Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity, and most writers specifically excluded calls for violence from being “protected.” There is no logical justification for allowing these things.

    *Really you should also read some opponents of free speech, like Plato. But first learn what free speech is and isn’t.

    • Agree: Richard B
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What’s actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think “calls for violence” and “sexually explicit language” are examples of things to be protected by free speech.
     

    Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity
     
    There are practical problems with excluding things like profanity (or pornography or blasphemy) from definitions of free speech. Once you have a system of censorship of such things in place then it's very easy for the censors to extend the censorship to other areas.

    It's also not always easy to draw the lines. For example during the Sexual Revolution much of the propaganda in favour of "sexual liberation" had a very strong political tinge - so was such propaganda "sexually explicit language” (in which case possibly subject to censorship) or was it political speech (and therefore excluded from censorship)?

    And what if someone criticises Mormonism on the grounds that Joseph Smith was a degenerate polygamist? Is that blasphemy or is it a legitimate expression of ideas?

    I suspect that the move towards free speech absolutism (even including pornography) was motivated partly by the belief that if you have any censorship at all then that censorship will be used for political purposes.

    I'm not arguing for free speech absolutism, merely suggesting a likely motivation for its proponents.
    , @Realist

    What’s actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think “calls for violence” and “sexually explicit language” are examples of things to be protected by free speech.

     

    Without calls for violence...a revolution is impossible.
  23. When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. It made sense then but apparently it does not make sense now. Now roughly half of us do not want everybody to have freedom of speech.

    Government controlled speech is characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Totalitarianism is like a nude beach. It seems like a good idea until you get there. After a generation or two free speech might make a come back.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. "

    This is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment says and what the the idea of freedom of speech is.

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself (it was never meant to be an excuse to abandon all requisites of public decency, or to protect porn, or to hide behind the invention of silly religions.) It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech, or any other behavior/expression within the confines of their own property (the 1A doesn't protect your "right" to scream 'fuck' either in my personal space, my home or in my place of business; an authentic right by nature does not and cannot infringe upon the same right of another.)

    Yelling "fire" in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue. In a sane world, the owner of the establishment would be well within his rights to forcibly remove such an individual from his property head first through the front door.
  24. @Dumbo
    Full "free speech" is an illusion. All ages have their taboos. At times it was religious heresies, or criticizing the Emperor, now it is questioning the wisdom of multiracialism or, say, how many people died in the Holocaust. Penalties can vary, however. Right now, at least in the U.S., you can be socially ostracized, lose your job or the possibility of earning a living, but probably won't go to prison (but wasn't someone recently arrested and condemned to 14 years in jail for burning a rainblow fag, I mean, rainbow flag?), but many people in Europe are being arrested for "hate speech".

    Certainly I don't see anything similar to "free speech" being very common now in the West - if it was really "free", why do most people, even here at Unz, use pseudonyms?

    And I don't see that changing for the "freer" in the future, on the opposite. Technology, if anything, has empowered the possibilities of censorship much more than of "freedom".

    I have little or no argument with what you say, except that you are missing the point of my comment against Mr. pseudoIntelligent Design. I disagree with, and find despicable, these following statements of his:

    … back when the world was a much better place.

    It wasn’t.

    … there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him.

    This denies what makes us human.

    … The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it…

    We don’t wish to abuse it.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty.

    It didn’t.

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  25. @iffen
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    Agreed. In my youth I confused freedom with license. This is not an uncommon error. I learned the difference in the school of hard knocks.

  26. Ah poor free speech, I knew him well.

    Times have changed my friends and free speech is no longer something that powers in control fear or need to repress. As we all know an asymmetrical phenomenon came about in social technology whereby all information became available to all people all the time anywhere in the world.

    The result- enlightenment? revolution? the brotherhood of man? No.
    The result was 1000’s of daily texts and selfies, videos, music access and en-stupidation (if that is a word). There became a culture of willful ignorance. Call it apathy, information overload or nihilism but no-one gives a crap anymore.

    I remember going to meetings in dank church basements where you would find books that no library would carry and some activist would go on about free speech and the rights of man and how we were losing our rights etc…

    The fact is that they have won. They always knew that less than 5% of the population would never buy their deceit. But they didn’t care. In a ‘democracy’ you can ignore them for the most part. In a totalitarian system there was the Lyubyanka. No person, no problem as the mustache would say.

    Added to which, this same technological phenomena also works as a ubiquitous monitoring tool such that should any serious unwanted resistance be fomented it could be killed in the larval stage.

    An optimist might counter ” but this same real-time communication could mobilize the resistance etc..” Bullshit. It is the same as those 400lb redneck keyboard warriors who say ” .. dey can try to take muh guns anna git the ammo furst”. Idiot wind.

    I was shocked to read not too long ago that it was revealed the 30% of the 10,000 mob that created havoc at the 1969 Democratic convention in Chicago in 1969 were either agents or informants! 1 9 6 9 , the summer of love.

    So all this mental masturbation about free speech is a delusional waste of time. Free speech is Yoric’s s skull.

    Proper change requires an informed citizenry. An informed citizenry requires knowledge. The citizenry was given all the knowledge in the world but a press of a button away on their very person. The citizenry preferred ignorance.

    Cheers-

  27. @Buzz Mohawk
    My God, you are despicable.

    I did not know this until I read your comment. Thank God you had the freedom to write it.

    Do you see how this works, idiot?

    Do you see how this works, idiot?

    Yes.

  28. @Audacious Epigone

    And I suppose this is reflected in the efforts of Jewish activism, such as the ADL and AIPAC and SPLC; groups that work harder to destroy the lives of anyone whom they deem a hate group, racist, or antisemitic. Let’s also not forget the criminal charges (some Orwellian optimists might instead call those incentives) that can be brought against individuals that publicly express doubts about the official holocaust history (this is not an endorsement of those doubts) in however many Western nations.

    At what point does one have to reconcile what they see with their own eyes with the data collected from some of these polls? Sure, 99% of liberals will tell you they are the least racist people in the world if given any opportunity, but their lifestyles (home, education, recreation and employment) indicate some of the highest in group preference of anyone.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    These groups punch above their weight but they are more vociferous than they are numerous. There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression.
  29. @WorkingClass
    When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. It made sense then but apparently it does not make sense now. Now roughly half of us do not want everybody to have freedom of speech.

    Government controlled speech is characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Totalitarianism is like a nude beach. It seems like a good idea until you get there. After a generation or two free speech might make a come back.

    “When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. ”

    This is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment says and what the the idea of freedom of speech is.

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself (it was never meant to be an excuse to abandon all requisites of public decency, or to protect porn, or to hide behind the invention of silly religions.) It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech, or any other behavior/expression within the confines of their own property (the 1A doesn’t protect your “right” to scream ‘fuck’ either in my personal space, my home or in my place of business; an authentic right by nature does not and cannot infringe upon the same right of another.)

    Yelling “fire” in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue. In a sane world, the owner of the establishment would be well within his rights to forcibly remove such an individual from his property head first through the front door.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech
     
    It says nothing of those things because in the late 18th century nobody could have imagined that a handful of megacorporations would gain absolute control of all political discourse. Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.
    , @WorkingClass

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself

     

    Which individuals or groups are you talking about?
    All of them. My Civics instructor referred to them as everybody. As in everybody has freedom of speech or nobody has freedom of speech. He did not teach that freedom of speech meant yelling fuck.

    Yelling “fire” in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue.
     
    I think my Civics instructor would agree and that is why he characterized it as an utterance that is an exception to utterances that are protected.
  30. The liberals would be happy to see 4/5 banned. The conservatives likely toss all 5 to get rid of the 1st.

  31. calls for violence

    This is a crime. I’m surprised it was included.

    That said, I suspect given the range of questions, this shows that people generally want their political rivals silenced.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  32. Anonymous[390] • Disclaimer says:

    OT
    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a27816619/millennial-sex-recession-false/

    The Millennial Sex Recession Is Bullsh*t

    Despite what the media says, we’re not lonely, porn-addicted careerists who are too selfish or busy to get it on. According to top experts, Cosmo’s exclusive data, and, um, actual millennials, we’re the most experimental, enlightened, and sexually fulfilled generation yet.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The headline oversells the article.

    The questions it raises are fine but they're not conclusively persuasive. She repeats one that comes up often--that people will lie, especially face-to-face, about their sexual experiences. Yes, but why would they lie more now than they did a generation or two ago? If anything, we should expect the opposite. Slut-shaming was worse then than it is now.
  33. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    What's actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think "calls for violence" and "sexually explicit language" are examples of things to be protected by free speech. At least read of the classical liberal justifications for free speech-- I would suggest Mill "on liberty" and Milton's "Areopagitica"-- to understand the arguments in support of why we have free speech in the first place.* Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity, and most writers specifically excluded calls for violence from being "protected." There is no logical justification for allowing these things.

    *Really you should also read some opponents of free speech, like Plato. But first learn what free speech is and isn't.

    What’s actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think “calls for violence” and “sexually explicit language” are examples of things to be protected by free speech.

    Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity

    There are practical problems with excluding things like profanity (or pornography or blasphemy) from definitions of free speech. Once you have a system of censorship of such things in place then it’s very easy for the censors to extend the censorship to other areas.

    It’s also not always easy to draw the lines. For example during the Sexual Revolution much of the propaganda in favour of “sexual liberation” had a very strong political tinge – so was such propaganda “sexually explicit language” (in which case possibly subject to censorship) or was it political speech (and therefore excluded from censorship)?

    And what if someone criticises Mormonism on the grounds that Joseph Smith was a degenerate polygamist? Is that blasphemy or is it a legitimate expression of ideas?

    I suspect that the move towards free speech absolutism (even including pornography) was motivated partly by the belief that if you have any censorship at all then that censorship will be used for political purposes.

    I’m not arguing for free speech absolutism, merely suggesting a likely motivation for its proponents.

  34. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. "

    This is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment says and what the the idea of freedom of speech is.

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself (it was never meant to be an excuse to abandon all requisites of public decency, or to protect porn, or to hide behind the invention of silly religions.) It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech, or any other behavior/expression within the confines of their own property (the 1A doesn't protect your "right" to scream 'fuck' either in my personal space, my home or in my place of business; an authentic right by nature does not and cannot infringe upon the same right of another.)

    Yelling "fire" in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue. In a sane world, the owner of the establishment would be well within his rights to forcibly remove such an individual from his property head first through the front door.

    It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech

    It says nothing of those things because in the late 18th century nobody could have imagined that a handful of megacorporations would gain absolute control of all political discourse. Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship."

    It didn't leave a door open because the door didn't exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.
    , @anon
    and yet- here we are.
  35. @Rosie

    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun
     
    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano. I don't suppose we can, so this is just the price we pay for intellectual freedom.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.

    Galileo did not get into trouble for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He got into trouble for publishing the idea in Italian rather than Latin, thereby exposing ordinary people to the idea. The Church felt that this would undermine religion. They were of course correct. From their point of view Galileo was dangerous.

    I’m not a Christian myself but I can see their point. It was, along with the Reformation, the beginning of the end for Christianity.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    Whether the destruction of Christianity was a good thing or not is of course a matter of opinion.

    Galileo was a lot more dangerous that some poor sick deranged nutter who thinks he’s an artist.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the beginning of the end for Christianity

    Only if you believe that what they were practicing was (is) Christianity.
    , @animalogic
    "It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values.[.....] It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction."
    Your 1st part is correct, the 2nd part is incorrect.
    Freedom of speech (FOS) can have, as you say, destructive "effects" (ie "undermining"). You then fall into error, saying that FOS is "always" used as a "weapon of destruction". You move from effects to motives & intentions.
    Some may use FOS intentionally to undermine. However, usually FOS only becomes apparent as an issue in itself when it has had the effect of undermining.
    The motive/intention behind the exercise of the FOS is often secondary. Existing Interests feel threatened by the FOS. They then have two lines of reaction (3 if you include Ad hominen) : attack the content of the FOS (ridiculous, revolting to say humans have ape-like ancestors) & attack the FOS itself. (Appalling that people can write/say such dangerous things, against man AND God etc) .
    Unfortunately, our entire civilisation post Enlightenment, is based on FOS. the free exchange of ideas. The chance for an Einstein (say) to reformulate Newtonian physics.
    Every attack on FOS is an attack on our (so-called) civilisation.
    (this does not include the distinction /debate between FOS & "licence").
    There are many examples of illegitimate attacks on FOS -- the inability of scholars (without running the gauntlet of career loss, civil or criminal action, emotional & physical assault etc) to even discuss what are essentially technicalities of the holocaust is an example. Questions regarding the actual numbers of dead in the holocaust & the exact means whereby they were killed would be natural areas of debate on a topic less protected by zealous, powerful minorities).
    , @Rosie

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.
     
    I'm for truth.

    Anyway, nowadays, the boot is on the other foot. While Darwinists quibble about what is or is not "science," philosophers are following the evidence where it leads, and coming back to God.

    http://harvardichthus.org/2009/08/renaissance-in-christian-philosophy/

    Those who hope Christianity is moribund are in for a rude awakening. The new, more empirical and defensible Christianity will trickle down as slowly as early 20th century atheism did, but trickle down it will.
  36. If you want to defend free speech, go after speech favored by Jews.

    Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinian rights. Say globo-homo is hatred against true morality and decency. Ban anti-white speech as hateful and vile. Denounce anti-Christian speech as ugly and demented.

    Only when Jews and homos fear that their speech is threatened will they defend free speech. Jews defended free speech in the past for that very reason.

    But of course, American Conservatism is all about sucking up to Jews. Notice Con Inc. sided with Zionists in suppressing BDS. So much for ‘conservative’ defense of free speech. It all comes down to “What do Jews want?”

    If you want to defend free speech, argue against hate speech of Jews and homos. Then, powerful Jews and homos will have second thoughts about shutting down ‘hate speech’.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Last time someone did something like this (it may have even been this blog), Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites--you'll notice it correlates with income and education. Maybe it changed after 8chan...

    Noah Berlatsky I can't help you with.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    That is what the debate over BDS is doing to some extent, albeit clumsily.
  37. @dfordoom

    It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech
     
    It says nothing of those things because in the late 18th century nobody could have imagined that a handful of megacorporations would gain absolute control of all political discourse. Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.

    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”

    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”
     
    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.
     
    Well yes, I'd agree with that. It's something entirely new that could not have been foreseen at the time.

    The interesting question though is - are the tech titans actually doing the government's bidding? I don't think that they are, not really. They're advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government's but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.
  38. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "When I was a kid in public school I was taught that everybody had to have freedom of speech or nobody would have it. The exception offered was we were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. "

    This is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment says and what the the idea of freedom of speech is.

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself (it was never meant to be an excuse to abandon all requisites of public decency, or to protect porn, or to hide behind the invention of silly religions.) It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech, or any other behavior/expression within the confines of their own property (the 1A doesn't protect your "right" to scream 'fuck' either in my personal space, my home or in my place of business; an authentic right by nature does not and cannot infringe upon the same right of another.)

    Yelling "fire" in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue. In a sane world, the owner of the establishment would be well within his rights to forcibly remove such an individual from his property head first through the front door.

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself

    Which individuals or groups are you talking about?
    All of them. My Civics instructor referred to them as everybody. As in everybody has freedom of speech or nobody has freedom of speech. He did not teach that freedom of speech meant yelling fuck.

    Yelling “fire” in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue.

    I think my Civics instructor would agree and that is why he characterized it as an utterance that is an exception to utterances that are protected.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "All of them. My Civics instructor referred to them as everybody. As in everybody has freedom of speech or nobody has freedom of speech."

    Your civics instructor's use of the "fire in a crowded theater" example suggests that he did not understand the distinction between speaking publicly against the government and speaking within a private location.

    "He did not teach that freedom of speech meant yelling fuck."

    Take the meaning from my hyperbolic example, please. Freedom of speech as protected by the 1A does not mean you can walk into a personal or private space and say whatever you want without consequence, or that there will be any consequence at all.

    "I think my Civics instructor would agree and that is why he characterized it as an utterance that is an exception to utterances that are protected."

    No - the argument made about the "yelling fire" example is that it can be disallowed (by the government) because it will cause disorder and panic therefor is not "protected speech." The problem with that argument, is that we are talking about "free speech" within the confines of a private location, and the government was never meant to have any influence either way on what can be said or not said in private. That would be up to the owner of the private location.

    So a prudent theater owner might design a policy that would prohibit using words or actions that create a panic among a large gathering within the premises, under threat of swift and harsh consequences, but the government itself doesn't get to (or was not ever supposed to be able to) make that policy.
  39. @dfordoom

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Galileo did not get into trouble for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He got into trouble for publishing the idea in Italian rather than Latin, thereby exposing ordinary people to the idea. The Church felt that this would undermine religion. They were of course correct. From their point of view Galileo was dangerous.

    I'm not a Christian myself but I can see their point. It was, along with the Reformation, the beginning of the end for Christianity.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    Whether the destruction of Christianity was a good thing or not is of course a matter of opinion.

    Galileo was a lot more dangerous that some poor sick deranged nutter who thinks he's an artist.

    the beginning of the end for Christianity

    Only if you believe that what they were practicing was (is) Christianity.

  40. @dfordoom

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Galileo did not get into trouble for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He got into trouble for publishing the idea in Italian rather than Latin, thereby exposing ordinary people to the idea. The Church felt that this would undermine religion. They were of course correct. From their point of view Galileo was dangerous.

    I'm not a Christian myself but I can see their point. It was, along with the Reformation, the beginning of the end for Christianity.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    Whether the destruction of Christianity was a good thing or not is of course a matter of opinion.

    Galileo was a lot more dangerous that some poor sick deranged nutter who thinks he's an artist.

    “It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values.[…..] It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.”
    Your 1st part is correct, the 2nd part is incorrect.
    Freedom of speech (FOS) can have, as you say, destructive “effects” (ie “undermining”). You then fall into error, saying that FOS is “always” used as a “weapon of destruction”. You move from effects to motives & intentions.
    Some may use FOS intentionally to undermine. However, usually FOS only becomes apparent as an issue in itself when it has had the effect of undermining.
    The motive/intention behind the exercise of the FOS is often secondary. Existing Interests feel threatened by the FOS. They then have two lines of reaction (3 if you include Ad hominen) : attack the content of the FOS (ridiculous, revolting to say humans have ape-like ancestors) & attack the FOS itself. (Appalling that people can write/say such dangerous things, against man AND God etc) .
    Unfortunately, our entire civilisation post Enlightenment, is based on FOS. the free exchange of ideas. The chance for an Einstein (say) to reformulate Newtonian physics.
    Every attack on FOS is an attack on our (so-called) civilisation.
    (this does not include the distinction /debate between FOS & “licence”).
    There are many examples of illegitimate attacks on FOS — the inability of scholars (without running the gauntlet of career loss, civil or criminal action, emotional & physical assault etc) to even discuss what are essentially technicalities of the holocaust is an example. Questions regarding the actual numbers of dead in the holocaust & the exact means whereby they were killed would be natural areas of debate on a topic less protected by zealous, powerful minorities).

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Does it not occur to you that the entire Enlightenment is the greatest crap in the history on mankind? Why do people who lack virtue deserve freedom? Why should freedom be held as the highest ideal above virtue? I am not saying that freedom is not important, but why should it be placed on a higher moral plane than virtue?
  41. @dfordoom

    It says nothing of citizens or businesses not being able to impose restrictions upon speaking, speech
     
    It says nothing of those things because in the late 18th century nobody could have imagined that a handful of megacorporations would gain absolute control of all political discourse. Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.

    and yet- here we are.

  42. @animalogic
    "It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values.[.....] It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction."
    Your 1st part is correct, the 2nd part is incorrect.
    Freedom of speech (FOS) can have, as you say, destructive "effects" (ie "undermining"). You then fall into error, saying that FOS is "always" used as a "weapon of destruction". You move from effects to motives & intentions.
    Some may use FOS intentionally to undermine. However, usually FOS only becomes apparent as an issue in itself when it has had the effect of undermining.
    The motive/intention behind the exercise of the FOS is often secondary. Existing Interests feel threatened by the FOS. They then have two lines of reaction (3 if you include Ad hominen) : attack the content of the FOS (ridiculous, revolting to say humans have ape-like ancestors) & attack the FOS itself. (Appalling that people can write/say such dangerous things, against man AND God etc) .
    Unfortunately, our entire civilisation post Enlightenment, is based on FOS. the free exchange of ideas. The chance for an Einstein (say) to reformulate Newtonian physics.
    Every attack on FOS is an attack on our (so-called) civilisation.
    (this does not include the distinction /debate between FOS & "licence").
    There are many examples of illegitimate attacks on FOS -- the inability of scholars (without running the gauntlet of career loss, civil or criminal action, emotional & physical assault etc) to even discuss what are essentially technicalities of the holocaust is an example. Questions regarding the actual numbers of dead in the holocaust & the exact means whereby they were killed would be natural areas of debate on a topic less protected by zealous, powerful minorities).

    Does it not occur to you that the entire Enlightenment is the greatest crap in the history on mankind? Why do people who lack virtue deserve freedom? Why should freedom be held as the highest ideal above virtue? I am not saying that freedom is not important, but why should it be placed on a higher moral plane than virtue?

    • Replies: @animalogic
    What is virtue? It's important.
    You'll probably need a free exchange of ideas (if only by the written word) to discover "virtue" (for Europeans, it's more than 2500 years in process ....)
  43. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship."

    It didn't leave a door open because the door didn't exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.

    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”

    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.

    Well yes, I’d agree with that. It’s something entirely new that could not have been foreseen at the time.

    The interesting question though is – are the tech titans actually doing the government’s bidding? I don’t think that they are, not really. They’re advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government’s but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Agreed. The tech titans along with fellow Oligarchs own the government. It's called corruption. And it was once illegal but - wait for it - corruption is now considered freedom of speech. When a billionaire buys your senator he/she is merely exercising his/her freedom of speech.

    I misspelled exercising. My spell check suggested supersizing his/her freedom of speech. Artificial intelligence in action.
    , @Toronto Russian

    The interesting question though is – are the tech titans actually doing the government’s bidding? I don’t think that they are, not really. They’re advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government’s but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.
     
    Seeing them as some conspiracy masterminds is giving them too much credit. "They" are boring marketing department people who don't want customers to go away. Customers tend to feel uncomfortable when "kill ethnicity/group X" are casually thrown around the platform where they came for a positive experience.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There are books that can--and hopefully will--be written about the power struggles going on behind the scenes between big government and big tech. It's not quite as neat as the latter owning the former--the EU, for example, genuinely causes Google, Facebook, Amazon etc a lot of headaches.
  44. @iffen
    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    Znzn asked:

    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want

    iffen answered:

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.

    But should it– i.e., the necessity for constraints– be taught? It is not clear to me what your position is on that.

    Absolute freedom is an illusion that cannot exist.
    1.) If I’m free to blast music at any hour, then my neighbor is not free to get a proper night’s sleep.
    2.) Even on the level of the individual, without constraints, man is a slave to his instincts and passions. Of course, the questions of determining just what those constraints should be and how and by whom they should be enforced, are, of course, many and far from simple. But ultimately, it is always a compromise; there has never and can never be a place and time where everyone can enjoy absolute freedom.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    Agree. (My allotment of Old Maid cookies has been exhausted.)

    Must, as in that's how we became civilized.

    Should, as in if we want to remain civilized.
  45. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    What's actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think "calls for violence" and "sexually explicit language" are examples of things to be protected by free speech. At least read of the classical liberal justifications for free speech-- I would suggest Mill "on liberty" and Milton's "Areopagitica"-- to understand the arguments in support of why we have free speech in the first place.* Their arguments are entirely based around protecting the exchange of ideas; no mention is made of profanity, and most writers specifically excluded calls for violence from being "protected." There is no logical justification for allowing these things.

    *Really you should also read some opponents of free speech, like Plato. But first learn what free speech is and isn't.

    What’s actually sad is that people have been deluded to the point where they think “calls for violence” and “sexually explicit language” are examples of things to be protected by free speech.

    Without calls for violence…a revolution is impossible.

  46. @Dissident
    Znzn asked:

    When did people start to think that freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want
     
    iffen answered:

    From the beginning, Z.

    Thinking otherwise must be taught.
     

    But should it-- i.e., the necessity for constraints-- be taught? It is not clear to me what your position is on that.

    Absolute freedom is an illusion that cannot exist.
    1.) If I'm free to blast music at any hour, then my neighbor is not free to get a proper night's sleep.
    2.) Even on the level of the individual, without constraints, man is a slave to his instincts and passions. Of course, the questions of determining just what those constraints should be and how and by whom they should be enforced, are, of course, many and far from simple. But ultimately, it is always a compromise; there has never and can never be a place and time where everyone can enjoy absolute freedom.

    Agree. (My allotment of Old Maid cookies has been exhausted.)

    Must, as in that’s how we became civilized.

    Should, as in if we want to remain civilized.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Has man ever been civilized in the history of humankind? Is it just as realistic as you sleeping with supermodels everyday?
  47. @dfordoom


    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”
     
    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.
     
    Well yes, I'd agree with that. It's something entirely new that could not have been foreseen at the time.

    The interesting question though is - are the tech titans actually doing the government's bidding? I don't think that they are, not really. They're advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government's but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.

    Agreed. The tech titans along with fellow Oligarchs own the government. It’s called corruption. And it was once illegal but – wait for it – corruption is now considered freedom of speech. When a billionaire buys your senator he/she is merely exercising his/her freedom of speech.

    I misspelled exercising. My spell check suggested supersizing his/her freedom of speech. Artificial intelligence in action.

  48. @iffen
    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech.

    Unless it supports BDS.

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech

    Unless it supports BDS.

    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist, let alone supportive of quashing the free speech rights of BDS supporters.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    • Replies: @iffen
    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist

    Quite, and not all Zionists are Jews. I was just trolling a certain segment of the Unz commentariat. Perhaps I should stop as it doesn't amount to much.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    Excellent framing of the question. It would be interesting to know how many fall into that group. I consider myself a Zionist once-removed and I am opposed to criminalizing speech, including speech regarding the JQ.

    Our exceptions to the rules tell us a lot about ourselves, eh?
    , @216

    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist
     
    The overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are Zionist. A few radical Haredi and far left don't even crack 10% of their population.

    Most American Jews are in effect, "Labor Zionists", rather than "Religious Zionists" associated with the Likud Party.

    How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?
     
    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors. Not only do Jews donate a lot of money per capita, their morally exalted status gives them a "canary voter" effect on neighboring white/Asian moderates. The proverbial "canary in the coal mine".

    Will this work, of course not. The GOP can't get a majority of the Jewish vote unless there is:

    -A visibily Anti-Israel Dem

    or

    -Somehow the GOP is perceived as more Anti-Christian than the Dems
  49. @dfordoom

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Galileo did not get into trouble for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He got into trouble for publishing the idea in Italian rather than Latin, thereby exposing ordinary people to the idea. The Church felt that this would undermine religion. They were of course correct. From their point of view Galileo was dangerous.

    I'm not a Christian myself but I can see their point. It was, along with the Reformation, the beginning of the end for Christianity.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    Whether the destruction of Christianity was a good thing or not is of course a matter of opinion.

    Galileo was a lot more dangerous that some poor sick deranged nutter who thinks he's an artist.

    It was a fine example of freedom of speech having the effect of undermining the existing social structure and undermining the entire superstructure of religion, traditional beliefs and traditional values. It was freedom of speech used as it is always used, as a weapon of destruction.

    I’m for truth.

    Anyway, nowadays, the boot is on the other foot. While Darwinists quibble about what is or is not “science,” philosophers are following the evidence where it leads, and coming back to God.

    http://harvardichthus.org/2009/08/renaissance-in-christian-philosophy/

    Those who hope Christianity is moribund are in for a rude awakening. The new, more empirical and defensible Christianity will trickle down as slowly as early 20th century atheism did, but trickle down it will.

  50. @Dissident

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech

    Unless it supports BDS.
     

     
    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist, let alone supportive of quashing the free speech rights of BDS supporters.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist

    Quite, and not all Zionists are Jews. I was just trolling a certain segment of the Unz commentariat. Perhaps I should stop as it doesn’t amount to much.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    Excellent framing of the question. It would be interesting to know how many fall into that group. I consider myself a Zionist once-removed and I am opposed to criminalizing speech, including speech regarding the JQ.

    Our exceptions to the rules tell us a lot about ourselves, eh?

    • Thanks: Dissident
  51. @Dissident

    Jews consistently express exceptionally high levels of support for free speech

    Unless it supports BDS.
     

     
    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist, let alone supportive of quashing the free speech rights of BDS supporters.

    The germane question here would be: How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist

    The overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are Zionist. A few radical Haredi and far left don’t even crack 10% of their population.

    Most American Jews are in effect, “Labor Zionists”, rather than “Religious Zionists” associated with the Likud Party.

    How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?

    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors. Not only do Jews donate a lot of money per capita, their morally exalted status gives them a “canary voter” effect on neighboring white/Asian moderates. The proverbial “canary in the coal mine”.

    Will this work, of course not. The GOP can’t get a majority of the Jewish vote unless there is:

    -A visibily Anti-Israel Dem

    or

    -Somehow the GOP is perceived as more Anti-Christian than the Dems

    • Replies: @iffen
    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors.

    Politicians are not a good example as they have no honor or principles. I don't think your "quite a lot" is true or proven.

    D's question still stands. What % of Zionists that claim to support free speech make an exception and wish to limit the speech of BDS advocates.

    I think that it would be interesting to know what % of Zionist commenters at Unz support free speech for BDS supporters. We could also throw in a question as to whether they support hate speech laws and revisionist propaganda.

  52. @dfordoom


    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”
     
    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.
     
    Well yes, I'd agree with that. It's something entirely new that could not have been foreseen at the time.

    The interesting question though is - are the tech titans actually doing the government's bidding? I don't think that they are, not really. They're advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government's but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.

    The interesting question though is – are the tech titans actually doing the government’s bidding? I don’t think that they are, not really. They’re advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government’s but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.

    Seeing them as some conspiracy masterminds is giving them too much credit. “They” are boring marketing department people who don’t want customers to go away. Customers tend to feel uncomfortable when “kill ethnicity/group X” are casually thrown around the platform where they came for a positive experience.

  53. Netflix is a woke corporation that supposedly would ban any “racism”, but it hosts a bunch of comedians who tell nothing but racial jokes. Who go all the way with the stereotypes except using actual slurs.

    They’re serving to the public what’s popular and brings money.

  54. @Priss Factor
    If you want to defend free speech, go after speech favored by Jews.

    Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinian rights. Say globo-homo is hatred against true morality and decency. Ban anti-white speech as hateful and vile. Denounce anti-Christian speech as ugly and demented.

    Only when Jews and homos fear that their speech is threatened will they defend free speech. Jews defended free speech in the past for that very reason.

    But of course, American Conservatism is all about sucking up to Jews. Notice Con Inc. sided with Zionists in suppressing BDS. So much for 'conservative' defense of free speech. It all comes down to "What do Jews want?"

    If you want to defend free speech, argue against hate speech of Jews and homos. Then, powerful Jews and homos will have second thoughts about shutting down 'hate speech'.

    Last time someone did something like this (it may have even been this blog), Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites–you’ll notice it correlates with income and education. Maybe it changed after 8chan…

    Noah Berlatsky I can’t help you with.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Your statement:

    "Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites–"

    ...is not true...

    "Free speech" to jews is ONLY speech that agrees with their agenda (for the rest of us).

    All one has to do is look at the present-day "anti-BDS movement" that has been outlawed, even here in the USA. Who "would have thought that such a prohibition on "free speech" could be imposed here in the USA?

    The jewish concept of "free speech" is akin to the "multiculturalism" and "diversity" advocacy that the jews want to impose on us "goyim" while reserving social and cultural insularity only for themselves.

    A good example of this is the "jews-only" town of Kiryas Joel. Non-jews are not permitted to purchase real estate, send their non-jewish children to the "public schools" and cannot even gain residency there. Jews are openly flouting every civil-rights", "equal housing" and "public accommodation" laws and getting away with it.

  55. @SFG
    Last time someone did something like this (it may have even been this blog), Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites--you'll notice it correlates with income and education. Maybe it changed after 8chan...

    Noah Berlatsky I can't help you with.

    Your statement:

    “Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites–”

    …is not true…

    “Free speech” to jews is ONLY speech that agrees with their agenda (for the rest of us).

    All one has to do is look at the present-day “anti-BDS movement” that has been outlawed, even here in the USA. Who “would have thought that such a prohibition on “free speech” could be imposed here in the USA?

    The jewish concept of “free speech” is akin to the “multiculturalism” and “diversity” advocacy that the jews want to impose on us “goyim” while reserving social and cultural insularity only for themselves.

    A good example of this is the “jews-only” town of Kiryas Joel. Non-jews are not permitted to purchase real estate, send their non-jewish children to the “public schools” and cannot even gain residency there. Jews are openly flouting every civil-rights”, “equal housing” and “public accommodation” laws and getting away with it.

    • Replies: @SFG
    All this is true (though banning BDS seems more popular with evangelicals than liberal Jews), but I recall someone here (perhaps it was AE) did the actual work on the GSS and that's what came out. the poll above doesn't have crosstabs by religion.

    Don't believe me, find the graph. Maybe I'm wrong. If I had the time I'd do it myself.

  56. @iffen
    Agree. (My allotment of Old Maid cookies has been exhausted.)

    Must, as in that's how we became civilized.

    Should, as in if we want to remain civilized.

    Has man ever been civilized in the history of humankind? Is it just as realistic as you sleeping with supermodels everyday?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Has man ever been civilized in the history of humankind? Is it just as realistic as you sleeping with supermodels everyday?

    Man can, and does dream.

  57. Just how do obscenity and calls for violence advance anything worth advancing? The purpose of free speech from a political point of view is to prevent those in power from banning criticism. Such criticism can be advanced without opening the floodgates of obscenity and violence.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  58. @WorkingClass

    The 1A, as defined by the constitution, prohibits the legislative body of the US government from imposing restrictions upon individuals or groups from expressing their beliefs publicly, more specifically, beliefs that stand in contrast to the efforts of the government itself

     

    Which individuals or groups are you talking about?
    All of them. My Civics instructor referred to them as everybody. As in everybody has freedom of speech or nobody has freedom of speech. He did not teach that freedom of speech meant yelling fuck.

    Yelling “fire” in a privately owned theater is not freedom of speech issue.
     
    I think my Civics instructor would agree and that is why he characterized it as an utterance that is an exception to utterances that are protected.

    “All of them. My Civics instructor referred to them as everybody. As in everybody has freedom of speech or nobody has freedom of speech.”

    Your civics instructor’s use of the “fire in a crowded theater” example suggests that he did not understand the distinction between speaking publicly against the government and speaking within a private location.

    “He did not teach that freedom of speech meant yelling fuck.”

    Take the meaning from my hyperbolic example, please. Freedom of speech as protected by the 1A does not mean you can walk into a personal or private space and say whatever you want without consequence, or that there will be any consequence at all.

    “I think my Civics instructor would agree and that is why he characterized it as an utterance that is an exception to utterances that are protected.”

    No – the argument made about the “yelling fire” example is that it can be disallowed (by the government) because it will cause disorder and panic therefor is not “protected speech.” The problem with that argument, is that we are talking about “free speech” within the confines of a private location, and the government was never meant to have any influence either way on what can be said or not said in private. That would be up to the owner of the private location.

    So a prudent theater owner might design a policy that would prohibit using words or actions that create a panic among a large gathering within the premises, under threat of swift and harsh consequences, but the government itself doesn’t get to (or was not ever supposed to be able to) make that policy.

  59. @anarchyst
    Your statement:

    "Jews actually showed an even greater support for free speech than whites–"

    ...is not true...

    "Free speech" to jews is ONLY speech that agrees with their agenda (for the rest of us).

    All one has to do is look at the present-day "anti-BDS movement" that has been outlawed, even here in the USA. Who "would have thought that such a prohibition on "free speech" could be imposed here in the USA?

    The jewish concept of "free speech" is akin to the "multiculturalism" and "diversity" advocacy that the jews want to impose on us "goyim" while reserving social and cultural insularity only for themselves.

    A good example of this is the "jews-only" town of Kiryas Joel. Non-jews are not permitted to purchase real estate, send their non-jewish children to the "public schools" and cannot even gain residency there. Jews are openly flouting every civil-rights", "equal housing" and "public accommodation" laws and getting away with it.

    All this is true (though banning BDS seems more popular with evangelicals than liberal Jews), but I recall someone here (perhaps it was AE) did the actual work on the GSS and that’s what came out. the poll above doesn’t have crosstabs by religion.

    Don’t believe me, find the graph. Maybe I’m wrong. If I had the time I’d do it myself.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Here we go, right behind liberal whites but ahead of moderate and conservative ones.

    AE gives us the data, even if it doesn't always fit his schema. Quite admirable really.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/free-speech-and-coalition-of-fringes/
  60. @SFG
    All this is true (though banning BDS seems more popular with evangelicals than liberal Jews), but I recall someone here (perhaps it was AE) did the actual work on the GSS and that's what came out. the poll above doesn't have crosstabs by religion.

    Don't believe me, find the graph. Maybe I'm wrong. If I had the time I'd do it myself.

    Here we go, right behind liberal whites but ahead of moderate and conservative ones.

    AE gives us the data, even if it doesn’t always fit his schema. Quite admirable really.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/free-speech-and-coalition-of-fringes/

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  61. @Znzn
    Does it not occur to you that the entire Enlightenment is the greatest crap in the history on mankind? Why do people who lack virtue deserve freedom? Why should freedom be held as the highest ideal above virtue? I am not saying that freedom is not important, but why should it be placed on a higher moral plane than virtue?

    What is virtue? It’s important.
    You’ll probably need a free exchange of ideas (if only by the written word) to discover “virtue” (for Europeans, it’s more than 2500 years in process ….)

  62. @Znzn
    Has man ever been civilized in the history of humankind? Is it just as realistic as you sleeping with supermodels everyday?

    Has man ever been civilized in the history of humankind? Is it just as realistic as you sleeping with supermodels everyday?

    Man can, and does dream.

  63. @216

    As you well know, not all Jews are even Zionist
     
    The overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are Zionist. A few radical Haredi and far left don't even crack 10% of their population.

    Most American Jews are in effect, "Labor Zionists", rather than "Religious Zionists" associated with the Likud Party.

    How many people (Jews as well as non-Jews) claim to be committed to the principle of free speech yet seek to deny said right to BDS supporters?
     
    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors. Not only do Jews donate a lot of money per capita, their morally exalted status gives them a "canary voter" effect on neighboring white/Asian moderates. The proverbial "canary in the coal mine".

    Will this work, of course not. The GOP can't get a majority of the Jewish vote unless there is:

    -A visibily Anti-Israel Dem

    or

    -Somehow the GOP is perceived as more Anti-Christian than the Dems

    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors.

    Politicians are not a good example as they have no honor or principles. I don’t think your “quite a lot” is true or proven.

    D’s question still stands. What % of Zionists that claim to support free speech make an exception and wish to limit the speech of BDS advocates.

    I think that it would be interesting to know what % of Zionist commenters at Unz support free speech for BDS supporters. We could also throw in a question as to whether they support hate speech laws and revisionist propaganda.

    • Replies: @SFG
    What do you mean by 'Zionist'?

    Do I think Israel has a right to exist? Yes.
    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    Do I support free speech for BDS supporters? Yes.
    Do I support hate speech laws? No.
    Do I support revisionist propaganda? If you mean 'do I support Holocaust denial', no. If you mean 'do I support making Holocaust denial illegal', no as well.
  64. @Intelligent Dasein

    To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:
     
    No, not really. This is a Whig-historical conceit but it isn't really true. Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.

    There is no such thing as free speech because there is no such thing as free thought. Each man thinks as he must, as the conditions of the moment determine him. The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of "liberty," i.e. revolutionaries.

    Everything wrong with the world today began its course as a question of liberty. Think about it.

    Some awareness please. The very blog you are commenting on right now would go away!

  65. @MikeatMikedotMike
    And I suppose this is reflected in the efforts of Jewish activism, such as the ADL and AIPAC and SPLC; groups that work harder to destroy the lives of anyone whom they deem a hate group, racist, or antisemitic. Let's also not forget the criminal charges (some Orwellian optimists might instead call those incentives) that can be brought against individuals that publicly express doubts about the official holocaust history (this is not an endorsement of those doubts) in however many Western nations.

    At what point does one have to reconcile what they see with their own eyes with the data collected from some of these polls? Sure, 99% of liberals will tell you they are the least racist people in the world if given any opportunity, but their lifestyles (home, education, recreation and employment) indicate some of the highest in group preference of anyone.

    These groups punch above their weight but they are more vociferous than they are numerous. There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression."

    We're talking about Jews, specifically.

    Have you ever considered the notion that the reason "normal" Jews (in the West) might be such big supporters of free speech is because as a small minority, it is beneficial for them to support a concept that allows them to speak openly against the majority, free of negative consequence? In other words, is it good for the Jews?

    Further, do you think they would be equally supportive of free speech if they were the majority? None of them seem to be too big on the idea of holocaust revisionism. Very few of them seem to welcome criticism of their own culture and customs.

  66. @Anonymous
    OT
    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a27816619/millennial-sex-recession-false/

    The Millennial Sex Recession Is Bullsh*t

    Despite what the media says, we’re not lonely, porn-addicted careerists who are too selfish or busy to get it on. According to top experts, Cosmo’s exclusive data, and, um, actual millennials, we’re the most experimental, enlightened, and sexually fulfilled generation yet.
     

    The headline oversells the article.

    The questions it raises are fine but they’re not conclusively persuasive. She repeats one that comes up often–that people will lie, especially face-to-face, about their sexual experiences. Yes, but why would they lie more now than they did a generation or two ago? If anything, we should expect the opposite. Slut-shaming was worse then than it is now.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    that people will lie, especially face-to-face, about their sexual experiences. Yes, but why would they lie more now than they did a generation or two ago? If anything, we should expect the opposite. Slut-shaming was worse then than it is now.
     
    Do you remember the 70s? There wasn't much slut-shaming going on! In fact there was a lot of prude-shaming - if you weren't promiscuous (or you appeared not to be promiscuous) you faced the social shame of being a prude or frigid or hopelessly out-of-date.

    The point is that we don't really understand all the myriad ways in which people either lie to others or lie to themselves about their sexual experiences. We don't know how the type and frequency of such lying varies according to age, social class, ethnicity, religion, education background, urban vs rural, etc etc. We don't know how the type and frequency of such lying varies over time with social fashions.

    All we know for certain is that every single thing that people tell us about their sexual experiences is almost certainly going to be a lie. And that the type and frequency of lying may well vary in ways that we cannot hope to predict.
  67. @Priss Factor
    If you want to defend free speech, go after speech favored by Jews.

    Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinian rights. Say globo-homo is hatred against true morality and decency. Ban anti-white speech as hateful and vile. Denounce anti-Christian speech as ugly and demented.

    Only when Jews and homos fear that their speech is threatened will they defend free speech. Jews defended free speech in the past for that very reason.

    But of course, American Conservatism is all about sucking up to Jews. Notice Con Inc. sided with Zionists in suppressing BDS. So much for 'conservative' defense of free speech. It all comes down to "What do Jews want?"

    If you want to defend free speech, argue against hate speech of Jews and homos. Then, powerful Jews and homos will have second thoughts about shutting down 'hate speech'.

    That is what the debate over BDS is doing to some extent, albeit clumsily.

  68. @dfordoom


    “Nobody at the time could have predicted that the First Amendment would turn out to be entirely useless because it would leave the door open to totalitarian corporate censorship.”
     
    It didn’t leave a door open because the door didn’t exist. The federal government using megatech to do its censoring for it is simply a new door being installed.
     
    Well yes, I'd agree with that. It's something entirely new that could not have been foreseen at the time.

    The interesting question though is - are the tech titans actually doing the government's bidding? I don't think that they are, not really. They're advancing their own agenda. Sometimes their desires coincide with the government's but essentially megacorporations are now operating as an independent quasi-government.

    There are books that can–and hopefully will–be written about the power struggles going on behind the scenes between big government and big tech. It’s not quite as neat as the latter owning the former–the EU, for example, genuinely causes Google, Facebook, Amazon etc a lot of headaches.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    There are books that can–and hopefully will–be written about the power struggles going on behind the scenes between big government and big tech. It’s not quite as neat as the latter owning the former–the EU, for example, genuinely causes Google, Facebook, Amazon etc a lot of headaches.
     
    It's essentially a struggle between two alternative governments. Sometimes they coöperate, sometimes they're in conflict.
  69. @Audacious Epigone
    The headline oversells the article.

    The questions it raises are fine but they're not conclusively persuasive. She repeats one that comes up often--that people will lie, especially face-to-face, about their sexual experiences. Yes, but why would they lie more now than they did a generation or two ago? If anything, we should expect the opposite. Slut-shaming was worse then than it is now.

    that people will lie, especially face-to-face, about their sexual experiences. Yes, but why would they lie more now than they did a generation or two ago? If anything, we should expect the opposite. Slut-shaming was worse then than it is now.

    Do you remember the 70s? There wasn’t much slut-shaming going on! In fact there was a lot of prude-shaming – if you weren’t promiscuous (or you appeared not to be promiscuous) you faced the social shame of being a prude or frigid or hopelessly out-of-date.

    The point is that we don’t really understand all the myriad ways in which people either lie to others or lie to themselves about their sexual experiences. We don’t know how the type and frequency of such lying varies according to age, social class, ethnicity, religion, education background, urban vs rural, etc etc. We don’t know how the type and frequency of such lying varies over time with social fashions.

    All we know for certain is that every single thing that people tell us about their sexual experiences is almost certainly going to be a lie. And that the type and frequency of lying may well vary in ways that we cannot hope to predict.

  70. @Audacious Epigone
    There are books that can--and hopefully will--be written about the power struggles going on behind the scenes between big government and big tech. It's not quite as neat as the latter owning the former--the EU, for example, genuinely causes Google, Facebook, Amazon etc a lot of headaches.

    There are books that can–and hopefully will–be written about the power struggles going on behind the scenes between big government and big tech. It’s not quite as neat as the latter owning the former–the EU, for example, genuinely causes Google, Facebook, Amazon etc a lot of headaches.

    It’s essentially a struggle between two alternative governments. Sometimes they coöperate, sometimes they’re in conflict.

  71. @iffen
    Quite a lot. The GOP is desperate for the Jewish vote and donors.

    Politicians are not a good example as they have no honor or principles. I don't think your "quite a lot" is true or proven.

    D's question still stands. What % of Zionists that claim to support free speech make an exception and wish to limit the speech of BDS advocates.

    I think that it would be interesting to know what % of Zionist commenters at Unz support free speech for BDS supporters. We could also throw in a question as to whether they support hate speech laws and revisionist propaganda.

    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?

    Do I think Israel has a right to exist? Yes.
    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    Do I support free speech for BDS supporters? Yes.
    Do I support hate speech laws? No.
    Do I support revisionist propaganda? If you mean ‘do I support Holocaust denial’, no. If you mean ‘do I support making Holocaust denial illegal‘, no as well.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?

    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today's Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.


    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    This is the only statement of yours with which I disagree. You have made an assumption there that I do not share. First you have to prove that "we are fighting their wars," then I can answer the question.

  72. @SFG
    What do you mean by 'Zionist'?

    Do I think Israel has a right to exist? Yes.
    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    Do I support free speech for BDS supporters? Yes.
    Do I support hate speech laws? No.
    Do I support revisionist propaganda? If you mean 'do I support Holocaust denial', no. If you mean 'do I support making Holocaust denial illegal', no as well.

    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?

    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today’s Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.

    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    This is the only statement of yours with which I disagree. You have made an assumption there that I do not share. First you have to prove that “we are fighting their wars,” then I can answer the question.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?
     
    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today’s Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.
     
    But are they entitled to the West Bank and the Golan Heights? That's the sticking point for me. I'm happy to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, within its legal pre-1967 frontiers. So am I a Zionist or an anti-Zionist?
  73. @iffen
    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?

    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today's Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.


    Do I think we should be fighting their wars for them? No.

    This is the only statement of yours with which I disagree. You have made an assumption there that I do not share. First you have to prove that "we are fighting their wars," then I can answer the question.

    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?

    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today’s Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.

    But are they entitled to the West Bank and the Golan Heights? That’s the sticking point for me. I’m happy to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, within its legal pre-1967 frontiers. So am I a Zionist or an anti-Zionist?

    • Replies: @iffen
    So am I a Zionist or an anti-Zionist?

    I suppose that you could carve out a position as a delimited Zionist.

    I usually don't take a vested position on other countries' border changes, revanchism and irredentism, e.g., Falklands, Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Balkans, Kashmir, etc., etc., etc.

    I do have opinions on what I think might be "best" for the countries involved and what the "best" outcome might be for America. For example, it would have been stupid as hell for Russia to allow NATO to set up shop in The Ukraine and to take over Sevastopol and I don't see any benefit for the US in that scenario. I really don't know if the Golan Heights is critical to their defense, but if it is, that's between Israel and Syria.

    As an added thought, I think that the so-called 2-state solution is a cruel, tragic, farcical, fraud.

  74. @dfordoom


    What do you mean by ‘Zionist’?
     
    Jews are entitled to a nation state and that nation state is rightfully centered upon the current location of Israel. Today’s Israeli Jews are the rightful descendants and inheritors of the Biblical Jews.
     
    But are they entitled to the West Bank and the Golan Heights? That's the sticking point for me. I'm happy to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, within its legal pre-1967 frontiers. So am I a Zionist or an anti-Zionist?

    So am I a Zionist or an anti-Zionist?

    I suppose that you could carve out a position as a delimited Zionist.

    I usually don’t take a vested position on other countries’ border changes, revanchism and irredentism, e.g., Falklands, Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Balkans, Kashmir, etc., etc., etc.

    I do have opinions on what I think might be “best” for the countries involved and what the “best” outcome might be for America. For example, it would have been stupid as hell for Russia to allow NATO to set up shop in The Ukraine and to take over Sevastopol and I don’t see any benefit for the US in that scenario. I really don’t know if the Golan Heights is critical to their defense, but if it is, that’s between Israel and Syria.

    As an added thought, I think that the so-called 2-state solution is a cruel, tragic, farcical, fraud.

  75. anon[103] • Disclaimer says:

    Freedom of expression only persists in societies dominated by like-minded individuals who don’t take disagreements personally or don’t disagree on things that could cause the destruction of society itself*. Usually, this implies ethnic homogeneity. Not realizing this fact is one of the more fundamental flaws of free speech advocates. It’s not a coincidence that America was the most stable when it was the most ethnically homogeneous in its voting pool and when suffrage was limited to privileged white men, the demographic that most supports free expression based on this graph.

    In theory, people are free to say whatever they want in “free speech” societies. In reality, there are still unstated speech boundaries — things that go unsaid or are punished when said, which is sometimes to a society’s benefit. There has never been unlimited freedom of speech in the United States and there never will be. There has always been some direct or indirect limit on people’s expression in some fashion, whether it be informal speech codes like the film industry’s Hays Code or the federal government’s efforts to silence political enemies with violence (The Palmer Raids, Charlottesville). Speech restrictions are all around you from movie ratings to selective YouTube deplatformings; that’s a short list — a very short list. Free speech has only ever existed within certain bounds, bounds that are now closing due to mismanagement of the nation brought about through magical thinking that doesn’t always comport with reality.

    Honestly, we’d have been better off if we had limited certain types of dangerous speech in the constitution. Imagine if it were felony hatespeech to promote mass immigration, the myth of “white privilege”, or refugee resettlement. Would our society have ended up here? Would we be better off now or not? Yes, leaving the issue up to Congress sets a dangerous precedent. Congress could revoke your rights at any time, but I don’t see how a constitutional amendment strictly limiting a handful of dangerous ideas while preserving 99.99% of total speech is a bad thing. You’d still get all the benefits of free speech — namely, the ability to criticize your government — without much of the bad speech that has ruined the country as of late.

    And if you’re worried about who gets to write that amendment, well that’s generally what separate countries are for. Have your own country populated by a homogeneous people with similar beliefs and you don’t have to worry about that.

    Many on the left have no problem censoring you. Fighting with one hand tied firmly behind your back while your opponent fights with both is why conservatives are losing. And have no doubt about it, you are indeed losing. There isn’t going to be a Trumpslide. The demographics rule that out whether or not you want to hear it. Donald Trump is going down in 2020 and afterward you will get speech restrictions, slowly but surely because there will be no mechanism to stop their enactment. The left is advocating for exactly that in Virginia and elsewhere where they have dominance; California and New York have passed speech codes outlawing misgendering, which they claim won’t result in jail sentences … for now, but those laws were based on laws in countries that do indeed jail and fine people. CNN is promoting a book by a guy who believes only the left should be allowed to disseminate information to the masses. The New York Times published an op-ed in 2017 by a law professor who advocates packing the supreme court with democrats and ominously warned republicans would be lucky to get a single seat under his scheme. There are countless other examples.

    End result: a permanent one-party dictatorship with a social credit system maintained by the ruling class. Sounds a lot like China, doesn’t it? Maybe worse. Free speech is how you got there.

    Would that have been the case if you had, instead, deplatformed your enemy’s speech first before they deplatformed you — before they banned you from Patreon or closed your bank account or doxed you and got you fired for attending a legal demonstration … ? Across the pond, would European countries be able to ban criticism of immigration or arrest people for making insensitive Facebook jokes if a nascent left had been strangled in its cradle, as Churchill described his efforts to destroy Russia’s October Revolution? Would there be a culture that attacks whites for being nominated for too many Oscars? Would the House be condemning your racial group in odious resolutions? Would there have been a Beto O’Rourke running for president and threatening to use the national guard to take away your guns? etc etc etc.

    Conservatives lose because they are magical thinkers who fight with unrealistic abstractions instead of facing reality. From a game theoretic standpoint, that’s a losing strategy. Imagine playing chess against an opponent who is only allowed half the number of moves or wasn’t permitted to move his queen. Who do you think wins a majority of games if both opponents are in the same ballpark of skill? The answer is obvious, and that observation explains much of why the right is on the “wrong side of history”. The sad thing is, sometimes you have to violate the rules you cherish in order to preserve them. Westerners don’t get that, so they lose.

    Further, it is a misconception that free speech always leads to the public doing the right thing, however defined. Lots of studies show people are generally resistant to altering their political dogma even when confronted with contradictory evidence. Thus, many of the problems facing the country now seem intractable. People form their opinions based on personal gain and group loyalties. People are emotional, not logical. So, don’t expect to be able to talk the future POC ruling class into allowing speech they disfavor based on theoretical, magical thinking. That kind of thing wasn’t enough to stop Robert Mugabe from stealing Zimbabwe’s farmlands away from whites; that county’s population had no problem destroying their golden goose despite critics who warned them on technical grounds. Same with lots of other countries, including the United States now and even moreso in the future.

    Free speech is downstream of a healthy society. If you wish to maintain free expression, you have to first maintain a healthy country. One of those things is a higher priority than the other because without one, you don’t’ have the other (China disproves the notion freedom —> prosperity; it’s prosperity –> freedom). On rare occasions, that means sacrificing a bit of freedom in the present to prevent a larger loss of freedom later through loss of prosperity — financial, physical, or psychological. Not understanding this is why you will lose both in the end.

    *Mass immigration, free healthcare for illegals, ending border enforcement — all things now supported by nearly every democrat running for the presidency. How did we get to this point? Answer: we allowed it to get to this point by not strangling leftism in its cradle by any means necessary when we had the chance. This is what magical thinking gets you.

  76. It is essential to disaggregate along two dimensions:

    The kinds of speech
    The level of government

    I suspect “conservatives” are very much opposed to violations of “community standards” when it comes to sexual or other public speech they view as harmful to children. That means their primary concern is at the local government level.

    This gets into my critique of the so-called “political compass” and why it contributes to virulent sociology.

    The “political compass” has been used by sociologists and political scientists as the supposed be all and end all of mapping the primary dimensions of social and political sentiment into a space. Supposedly all other dimensions are relatively insignificant when analyzing the dimensionality of political and social attitudes.

    It is my hypothesis that the reason for this limited dimensionality is due to the fact that the questionnaires do not systematically include the scale of social organization to which the question applies.

    For instance, take the statement “I oppose homosexual behavior.”

    Let’s break this down into the following 3 statements:

    “I prefer homosexual relations.”
    “Homosexuality should be allowed within my nation.”
    “I would tolerate the existence of a nation, somewhere in the world, that allowed homosexuality.”

    A likely outcome of these statements for a great many people are: “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree”

    However, the questionnaires for “The Political Compass” rarely let people express their tolerance of diversity in any manner except what I have termed “heterosity” or novel, local diversity.

    I further hypothesize that this is because the culture of sociologists and political scientists is dominated by vectorists—or people promoting heterosity as a means not only of transmitting more virulent genes and memes globally but evolving virulence via horizontal transmission. The general unspoken assumption in designing their questionnaires is that if one is to be intolerant of some behavior or belief in your personal life, your family, your community, your county, your state or in your nation, that you must therefore be intolerant of the behavior globally. Hence those subjected to these abusive questionnaires are put in a ridiculous position—the outcome of which fails to represent firewalling of cultures to discover what works and what fails in reality, as opposed to in the verbal bantering of academic sophists who nearly to the “person” promotes open borders and heterosity.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  77. @Audacious Epigone
    These groups punch above their weight but they are more vociferous than they are numerous. There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression.

    “There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression.”

    We’re talking about Jews, specifically.

    Have you ever considered the notion that the reason “normal” Jews (in the West) might be such big supporters of free speech is because as a small minority, it is beneficial for them to support a concept that allows them to speak openly against the majority, free of negative consequence? In other words, is it good for the Jews?

    Further, do you think they would be equally supportive of free speech if they were the majority? None of them seem to be too big on the idea of holocaust revisionism. Very few of them seem to welcome criticism of their own culture and customs.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That should also apply to non-whites, though, but it doesn't really.

    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.
  78. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "There are a lot of liberals are chafing under Woke oppression."

    We're talking about Jews, specifically.

    Have you ever considered the notion that the reason "normal" Jews (in the West) might be such big supporters of free speech is because as a small minority, it is beneficial for them to support a concept that allows them to speak openly against the majority, free of negative consequence? In other words, is it good for the Jews?

    Further, do you think they would be equally supportive of free speech if they were the majority? None of them seem to be too big on the idea of holocaust revisionism. Very few of them seem to welcome criticism of their own culture and customs.

    That should also apply to non-whites, though, but it doesn’t really.

    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.

    Only is a big word.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    You didn't answer the questions.
  79. @Audacious Epigone
    That should also apply to non-whites, though, but it doesn't really.

    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.

    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.

    Only is a big word.

  80. @Audacious Epigone
    That should also apply to non-whites, though, but it doesn't really.

    Only white gentiles of European descent are welcoming of criticism of their own culture and customs, especially from outsiders.

    You didn’t answer the questions.

  81. @Nodwink

    Blasphemy, heresy, impugning the known truth, and lese majeste were all illegal to various degrees back when the world was a much better place.
     
    Things were great when you could be burned alive for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun; or you could be sliced up like sashimi by a battle-hardened mercenary, because some Frenchman dressed like RuPaul was insulted by a German guy with a tail.

    or you could be sliced up like sashimi by a battle-hardened mercenary, because some Frenchman dressed like RuPaul was insulted by a German guy with a tail.

    I hear, in the above, echoes of Dickens’ opening to Tale of Two Cities. Did it, perchance, serve as an influence upon what you wrote?

    Under the guidance of her Christian pastors, she entertained herself, besides, with such humane achievements as sentencing a youth to have his hands cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers, and his body burned alive, because he had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of monks which passed within his view, at a distance of some fifty or sixty yards.

    To anyone who would claim, without qualification, that Dickens was an anti-Catholic bigot, I would ask: How familiar are you with his other work of historical fiction, Barnaby Rudge? (Centered around the Gordon Riots of 1780. One or two of the more extreme anti-Catholic individuals whose comments I have come across from time-to-time here at UR have reminded me of the infamous No Popery! cries that the wonderfully talented Mil Nicholson so compellingly animates in her reading of said Dickens’ work that I linked-to above. Incidentally, I would probably rate Rudge more highly than I would Two Cities.)

    A question I would ask Intelligent Dasein and others who share his apparent desire to restore the West to Throne and Altar theocracy of the Roman Catholic variety: How would non-Christians be treated in, say, the United States of America you envision? Would we, as long as were not actively hostile or subversive to the State religion, be afforded the freedom of conscience to believe or not believe, practice or not practice, as we so chose?

  82. @dfordoom

    The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.
     
    Freedom of speech is inherently subversive. Its purpose is to undermine the status quo. It's popular among those who wish for radical change. Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech.

    Conservatives used to hate free speech back in the days when they were opposed to radical change. Now that conservatives no longer want to conserve anything they love free speech.

    The dissident right loves free speech because they're would-be revolutionaries (they're probably the most inept revolutionaries in history but that's another topic).

    Freedom of speech is a weapon with which to smash the current order. Liberals have used it with enthusiasm for well over a century. Now liberals control the current order so they're less keen on free speech.

    Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech

    A bit late for that now, isn’t it? As you acknowledge in your concluding sentence,

    Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.

    At this point, a great deal of radical change has already been effected. At least some of this change has been so radical and revolutionary that it would almost certainly appall even some of the most extreme radicals and revolutionaries of the past.

    [Would Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che` or Mao ever dream of denying a biological reality as objective, clear and manifest as that of sex*? Even radical feminists who insist that there is no biological basis for traditional sex* roles (already a degree of lunacy) reject the complete lunacy of pretending that an individual of one sex can, by declaring himself to be a member of the opposite sex, magically become one.}

    *”Gender”, let it never be forgotten, is but a linguistic construct.)

    The principled, consistent concept of freedom of speech, as I understand it, is that it is precisely that which is deemed offensive and objectionable that is in need of protection. No one tries to stifle the expression of views that he finds agreeable or innocuous. What The prevailing dispensation, zeitgeist and sensibilities at any given time and place, are inevitably (if not inherently) subjective and volatile. Recognizing this reality, it behooves everyone– assenters as well as dissenters; Deplorables as well as Respectables— to support, within certain reasonable limits as determined and stipulated by consensus, a universal, impartial right of free speech.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
    ~ ~ ~
    Rosie wrote,

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.

    Would abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) adversely affect a Galileo type?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Serrano

    […], led the artist to create his infamous Piss Christ. This image was exhibited at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, N.C., in 1988, as part of that institution’s Awards in the Visual Arts series, funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[emphasis mine- Dis.]

    ~ ~ ~

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.

    Quite forgivable, given the degree of sheer, unmitigated, invincible haughtiness, condescension and, as you note, self-satisfaction, that the individual-in-question has consistently, persistently demonstrated. Your expression of regret is most commendable, nonetheless. Any veering into personal attacks can all-too-quickly plunge a thread into the abyss. I find the best, most simple basic rule to follow when engaging in debate to be one I heard articulated by Luke Ford: Stick to facts and logic.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
     
    It's interesting to compare the First and Second Amendments. The Second Amendment gives ordinary people the right to own guns. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use those guns against society. They will commit murders, robberies, etc. On balance you might decide that's a price worth paying.

    The First Amendment was intended to put an even more powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary people - free speech. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use that weapon against society. On balance you might decide that's a price worth paying.

    Now imagine if a few giant corporations gained a monopoly not just on the manufacture but the distribution of guns, so that only people they approved of could get guns. They could overthrow the entire social and political order.

    A few giant corporations have gained a monopoly on the distribution of free speech, so that only people they approve of can have free speech. They could overthrow the entire social and political order. And they have.

    I'm not advocating banning guns or free speech (I kinda like free speech), but we need at least to understand that they are weapons.
  83. @dfordoom

    The only ones to ever make a big deal out of free speech are those who wish to abuse it, those who demand to have their nefarious activities tolerated in the name of “liberty,” i.e. revolutionaries.
     
    Freedom of speech is inherently subversive. Its purpose is to undermine the status quo. It's popular among those who wish for radical change. Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech.

    Conservatives used to hate free speech back in the days when they were opposed to radical change. Now that conservatives no longer want to conserve anything they love free speech.

    The dissident right loves free speech because they're would-be revolutionaries (they're probably the most inept revolutionaries in history but that's another topic).

    Freedom of speech is a weapon with which to smash the current order. Liberals have used it with enthusiasm for well over a century. Now liberals control the current order so they're less keen on free speech.

    Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech

    A bit late for that now, isn’t it? As you acknowledge in your concluding sentence,

    Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.

    At this point, a great deal of radical change has already been effected. At least some of this change has been so radical and revolutionary that it would almost certainly appall even some of the most extreme radicals and revolutionaries of the past.

    [Would Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che` or Mao ever dream of denying a biological reality as objective, clear and manifest as that of sex*? Even radical feminists who insist that there is no biological basis for traditional sex* roles (already a degree of lunacy) reject the complete lunacy of pretending that an individual of one sex can, by declaring himself to be a member of the opposite sex, magically become one.}

    *”Gender”, let it never be forgotten, is but a linguistic construct.)

    The principled, consistent concept of freedom of speech, as I understand it, is that it is precisely that which is deemed offensive and objectionable that is in need of protection. No one tries to stifle the expression of views that he finds agreeable or innocuous. What The prevailing dispensation, zeitgeist and sensibilities at any given time and place, are inevitably (if not inherently) subjective and volatile. Recognizing this reality, it behooves everyone– assenters as well as dissenters; Deplorables as well as Respectables— to support, within certain reasonable limits as determined and stipulated by consensus, a universal, impartial right of free speech.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
    ~ ~ ~
    Rosie wrote,

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.

    Would abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) adversely affect a Galileo type?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Serrano

    […], led the artist to create his infamous Piss Christ. This image was exhibited at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, N.C., in 1988, as part of that institution’s Awards in the Visual Arts series, funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[emphasis mine- Dis.]

    ~ ~ ~

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.

    Quite forgivable, given the degree of sheer, unmitigated, invincible haughtiness, condescension and, as you note, self-satisfaction, that the individual-in-question has consistently, persistently demonstrated. Your expression of regret is most commendable, nonetheless. Any veering into personal attacks can all-too-quickly plunge a thread into the abyss. I find the best, most simple basic rule to follow when engaging in debate to be one I heard articulated by Luke Ford: Stick to facts and logic.

  84. @Dissident

    Those who wish to avoid radical change would be well advised to think about whether they really want free speech
     
    A bit late for that now, isn't it? As you acknowledge in your concluding sentence,

    Now liberals control the current order so they’re less keen on free speech.
     
    At this point, a great deal of radical change has already been effected. At least some of this change has been so radical and revolutionary that it would almost certainly appall even some of the most extreme radicals and revolutionaries of the past.

    [Would Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che` or Mao ever dream of denying a biological reality as objective, clear and manifest as that of sex*? Even radical feminists who insist that there is no biological basis for traditional sex* roles (already a degree of lunacy) reject the complete lunacy of pretending that an individual of one sex can, by declaring himself to be a member of the opposite sex, magically become one.}

    *"Gender", let it never be forgotten, is but a linguistic construct.)

    The principled, consistent concept of freedom of speech, as I understand it, is that it is precisely that which is deemed offensive and objectionable that is in need of protection. No one tries to stifle the expression of views that he finds agreeable or innocuous. What The prevailing dispensation, zeitgeist and sensibilities at any given time and place, are inevitably (if not inherently) subjective and volatile. Recognizing this reality, it behooves everyone-- assenters as well as dissenters; Deplorables as well as Respectables-- to support, within certain reasonable limits as determined and stipulated by consensus, a universal, impartial right of free speech.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?
    ~ ~ ~
    Rosie wrote,

    The question is whether ot would be possible to craft policies that protect Galileo but not Serrano.
     
    Would abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) adversely affect a Galileo type?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andres-Serrano

    [...], led the artist to create his infamous Piss Christ. This image was exhibited at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, N.C., in 1988, as part of that institution’s Awards in the Visual Arts series, funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[emphasis mine- Dis.]
     
    ~ ~ ~

    He expresses extreme contempt and self-satisfaction, but I am at fault for making an ad hominem comment and I wish I hadn’t.
     
    Quite forgivable, given the degree of sheer, unmitigated, invincible haughtiness, condescension and, as you note, self-satisfaction, that the individual-in-question has consistently, persistently demonstrated. Your expression of regret is most commendable, nonetheless. Any veering into personal attacks can all-too-quickly plunge a thread into the abyss. I find the best, most simple basic rule to follow when engaging in debate to be one I heard articulated by Luke Ford: Stick to facts and logic.

    At any rate, are you suggesting that those of us in the US would do well to consider repealing the First Amendment? At this stage of the game? On Principle? Or based upon some long-term calculation?

    It’s interesting to compare the First and Second Amendments. The Second Amendment gives ordinary people the right to own guns. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use those guns against society. They will commit murders, robberies, etc. On balance you might decide that’s a price worth paying.

    The First Amendment was intended to put an even more powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary people – free speech. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use that weapon against society. On balance you might decide that’s a price worth paying.

    Now imagine if a few giant corporations gained a monopoly not just on the manufacture but the distribution of guns, so that only people they approved of could get guns. They could overthrow the entire social and political order.

    A few giant corporations have gained a monopoly on the distribution of free speech, so that only people they approve of can have free speech. They could overthrow the entire social and political order. And they have.

    I’m not advocating banning guns or free speech (I kinda like free speech), but we need at least to understand that they are weapons.

    • Thanks: Dissident

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS